For those who may not know, there is an entertainment magazine by and about Indians called Redskin Magazine. You'd think that would break all those little liberal hearts out there--especially the ones that campaigned so desperately against the Washington Redskins professional football time (like, heavy-weighted Suzan Harjo). Well, well. Sometime, liberal-trained protesters are just wrong. They don't stand for Indians at all. I certainly never believed they did myself, but, then, those same liberals were just so very sure I was the one "off the reservation." (Or, should I say, still on the reservation? That liberal jargon is so hard to make sense of.)
Yes, Redskin is all about rock music, rockified Indian bands, Indian comedians, "models," etc. It's strickly a "pop" version of Indians. Perfectly normal. Not to my personal taste, but, that is entirely irrelevant. The magazine shows Indians in the "popular" mode, not the refined traditional or artistic mode.
The magazine is currently advertising a woman named Ashley Kahsaklahwee and her soon to be launched web site. Of course, she already has one, AshleySkin.com. It's pornographic, and she sports her silicon (or what certainly appears to be surgical artiface) like jingles at a pow-wow. Quite repugnant in my view, but, again, opinion is irrelevant. (I've long ago offered my opinion of Indian women acting like white women in efforts to attract men--all men, to their bodies: Indian Women Mascots, Nov. 17, 2002, and Have Indians Become Media-dependent, Too? Dec. 20, 2002.) American Indian porno, that's what Ashley is about. Her decision--to be like white women. And, again, that's my opinion.
Let's look into the matter of who's putting this entertainment rag out, anyway. First, here's some choice info posted as a mission statement:'
RSM is the ultimate entertainment resource for not only First Nations people but for all cultures world wide. Our publication enlists a global scope that appeals to men and women of various adult ages. We represent a refreshing, innovative and informative presentation of models, culture, fashion, music and all forms of Arts and Entertainment.
The likes of "sexual relationships," "erotic and sexual advice," "adult sexuality and entertainment," and "questions on sexuality" all enhance, shall we say, the introductory paragraphs. So, we're clear on the main attraction here. Of course, the magazine professes a grand scope of interests, none of which would hold attention without the pornographic aspect. Or, so the magazine's tacit content would seem to indicate.
So be it. There is a large group of Indians, younger Indians, say, under 50 or under 40, who seem hungry for their own society, and are quite averse to the "elders" routine. They have been offended by their own parents and families, if such can be called that. This magazine will probably be a success, among Indians. And, with the rarety of American Indian porno, it will, for a while, probably be a big seller to non-Indians. (Get that? Rarety of Indian porno. That's because it has never had a place in Indian culture. This is foreign to our traditions.)
Jody Martin and Mathew Hill are the owners/operators ( hill@redskinmagazine.ca ). Hillary Chambers is the editor ( chambers@redskinmagazine.ca ). Strong Indian names there. And note, the thing is created in Canada. It isn't an American Indian thing after all.
Interestingly, Sheena Wassegijig ( wassegijig@redskinmagazine.ca ) in the Media Arts department of the magazine, had this to say to Rob Schmidt (a fairly insignificant white liberal who condescendingly seeks to train Indains on how to be Indian):
Call me a Redskin! I'm proud to wear the name...RE-INVENTION IS A GREAT THING. I would honestly NOT be offended. Call me a wagon-burner...
I mean...a stereotype is no money out of my pocket, takes no joy out of my life. its just dumb people who think they are being smart by labelling someone else.
My, that must sting those liberals! How crushing. How devastating. She said what needed to be said to the likes of the liberal trenchman Schmidt. His desperate comeback was to compare Wassegijig to me:
You sound like David Yeagley, the anti-Indian white supremacist who once wrote, "Call me savage!" Do you really want to be associated with the likes of him?
I'm afraid the liberals the racists. White liberals like Schmidt, who think they know how Indians should think, and try to tell Indians how to be Indian, are simply wrong, and have been all along. I'm just smiling at the fact that I never was impressed with them, and now, obviously, no one else is, either. That's the point.
As to the porno thing, or the lower levels of entertainment, that's a different issue. I say that Indians are truly creative and artistic people. This entertainment magazine, like any other popular magazine of it's nature, simply doest not bring out the best, or the highest levels of Indian creativity. I think that's a fair assessment. It is what it is.
Typically, Democrats have organized more Indians in Oklahoma, so that they make optimum use of the Indian voting population. Republicans have done nothing to my knowledge to seek or foster the Indian vote.
Kalyn Free, a superdelegate of the Democrat Party of Oklahoma has just endorsed Barak Hussein Obama, the foreign fringe candidate from...Hawaii? Wherever. Barak Hussein Obama, the surrogate Muslim candidate. True to the non-thinking race-based Democrat political tactic, Free's endorsement emphasizes the lack of information and lack of in-touch politics in Indian Country. The noisy liberal leaders of Indian country media, all steeped in the professional jargon of resentment and victimhood, think that a non-white man, especially a black man, is the magic forumla for America--representing sweet revenge against Whitey, and triumph for all persons of color.
Kalyn Free, of Red Oak, Oklahoma.
This is so over. Nothing could be further from the truth--especially in the case of Obama. Obama is turning out to be the archtypical fringe Democrat politician, full of questionable associations, obvious anti-American sentiments, and full of exigent deceit. Free is certainly fooled:
"As a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, I am proud of what it means to be an American Indian," Free said in her announcement of support for Obama. " I am proud Barack Obama is committed to our unique issues and willing to tackle our toughest problems, from historical inequities and injustices to contemporary issues, like protection of our right to tribal self-determination, access to health care for our elders, and education for our children.
"I support Sen. Obama because I believe the only way to rebuild America is to rebuild what makes us great — the hope and drive of the American people," she said.
There is traditionally a good deal of Negro intermarriage in the Choctaw tribe, of course, but that may or may not have been a factor in Free's choice of the Magic Negro.
People who are truly proud of being American Indian would never, ever support a Negro as in any way representing the interesets of America Indians. No people are more insensitive to Indian problems, more presumptuous of Indian association, and more careless with ethnic identity.
According to Obama's notorious "race" speech (March 18, 2008), Indians to not not even exist! That Free should overlook such an obvious attitude only shows the depths of Democrat blindness and naivete. All Hussein had to say was that the American Negro (which he is not) was mistreated and that slavery was America's original sin (in which he had no part).
This is sympathy for American Indians? To not even acknowlege our existence when speaking of race and America's "orignal" problems? (And he twice mentioned Hispanics--as if Spanish speaking people other than Mexicans ever had anything to do with America.)
Obama has a very crippled mind, undependable, slippery, and warped when it comes to politics. He says anything he has to say, at any point, to get by. He is I believe worse than Hillary Clinton. Hussein is incapable of uniting anything in this country. He has caused the most basic kind of division there is: ethnic division. An African Negro is going to instruct us on how to "move on" passed race? This shows how very, very far out of touch he actually is with the American public, American history, and the ethose of America society. The man is a foreigner, period.
This is abundantly clear.
I am particularly offended that any American Indian political representative, any Indian in official political office, should be so blind as to think the Obama has any understanding or appreciation or knowledge of American Indian people. This is pathetic. I am ashamed and abashed for Kalyn Free. Her endorsement is a catastrophy.
Any Indian that has been around the large reservations or large Indian populations knows how aggressively low class black males have attacked Indian women and impregnated more and more them. Everyone who knows what is happening knows how anxious the Negro male is to move in on Indian country. It is an easy take. And they come in numbers. Apparently they think the Indian woman is the easiest kill in the land.
This is what the American Negro male represent to American Indians: a sex offender. An intruder. One who destroys Indians. The American Negro male is attempting to destroy the Indian race. This is truly the rawest form of racism--to destory another race by sex. No, we're not talking about marriage. That is much to difficult for the Negro male. We're talking only about sex--animal sex. Useless, meaningless sex. That's what this is all about. Attack by sex, not by guns or politics. We're talking about diseased philanderers on the loose, who have no purpose but sex, and sex with any race outside their own. In this low life perspective, creating a Negro within another race is the same as conquering that race. This kind of thing is nothing less than genocide.
Barak Hussein Obama represents the worse kind of threat there is to American Indians. In the past, I have praised him for having the good sense to marry a strong black woman. I'm now beginning to see that as a front of some kind. It is functioning that way, even if it is not his design. It merely insulates him from racist accusation. It merely validates his bid for the black vote. And, obviously, by his appearance, he can't run as anything but black.
It is a tragedy that Indians should misunderstand what Barak Hussein Obama is all about. He's not about Indians, that's one thing we know. In his mind, in his formal. statements, Indians do not exist.
I have sometimes amused myself by endeavoring to fancy what would be the fate of an individual gifted, or rather accursed, with an intellect very far superior to that of his race. Of course, he would be conscious of his superiority; nor could he (if otherwise constituted as man is) help manifesting his consciousness. Thus he would make himself enemies at all points. And since his opinions and speculations would widely differ from those of all mankind--that he would be considered a madman, is evident. How horribly painful such a condition! Hell could invent no greater torture than that of being charged with abnormal weakness on account of being abnormally strong.
In like manner, nothing can be clearer than that a very generous spirit--truly feeling what all merely profess--must inevitably find itself misconceived in every direction--its motives misinterpreted. Just as extremeness of intelligence would be thought fatuity, so excess of chivalry could not fail of being looked upon as meanness in its last degree:--and so on with other virtues. This subject is a painful one indeed. That individuals have so soared above the plane of their race, is scarcely to be questioned; but, in looking back through history for traces of their existence, we should pass over all biographies of "the good and the great," while we search carefully the slight records of wretches who died in prison, in Bedlam, or upon the gallows.
Edgar Allan Poe, 1809-1849
Thoughts of Edgar Allan Poe, written in 1849. They were in a collection of comments on various topics. Poe called the collection "Marginalia," as if the varied thoughts were comments belonged in the margins of the world's news. The above marginal note is No. 83 in a collection of 226. They vary in length, from a couple of sentences to several paragraphs.
Poe is known for the macabre, the gothic, and the weird. A handful of his short stories dominate his public image today, partly because Hollywood picked up on the most horrid of his stories and made movies out of them, like "The Masque of the Red Death," "The House of Usher," "The Pit and the Pendulum," etc., all aggrandizing the fear of death.
Poe certainly may have earned his dark image. There isn't any doubt that he out-Germaned the Germans on the gothic, much to some critics' dismay. ("Mr. Poe is too fond of the wild — unnatural and horrible! Why will he not permit his fine genius to soar into purer, brighter, and happier regions? Why will he not disenthral himself from the spells of German enchantment and supernatural imagery? There is room enough for exercise of the highest powers, upon the multiform relations of human life, without descending into the dark, mysterious and unutterable creations of licentious fancy." From the Richmond Compiler, February 1836, commenting on Poe's tale "The Duc de L'Omelette.")
The truth is, Poe did in fact take a fanciful flight or two toward heaven, "Eleanora" being one of the most memorable--earthen though its base. "The Domain of Arnheim" is another, even more earthen. For Poe, the door to heaven was beauty. Nature was that door, if a woman was the key. (And we wouldn't want to neglect "The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion," "The Colloquy of Monos and Una," and "The Power of Words," three short stories about the post-apocalyptic time, sometimes known as the 'angelic conversations.'
The point here is that life is a bit beyond one's control. Self, the image of self, the consciousness itself, are all a bit more than the sum of circumstantial parts. There is a most definite limit to the control one can exert over life and image. This is somewhat maddening, since the mind lives in images. A hall of mirrors is our very consciousness. We live in a constant flow of imagination, projection, anticipation, and reflection. The present comprises the past and the future--both realms of the imagination. Memory and anticipation--some created projection based on pieces of memeory, are all that the mind has to offer.
Then there is the matter of public image, and the art of the sell. Right now, America is in a most interesting stage of public imaging in politics. We have an African .5 (point five), a mulatto, trying to manage one of the most curious image challenges in the history of American politics. Maintaining the foreign Muslim name, Barak Hussein Obama is his self-imposed Olympic feat. He's not American Negro, and never will be, but he has tried to use that image to his advantage, nonetheless. Other public images now are forming about him. Which one will abide? Which one is the truth?
Poe says that the greatest, the brightest, the purest, will inevitably be seen as the least, the darkest, and the vilest. This is about image, is it not? Why do we not see things as they are, or even as others may see them? Now Ralph Waldo Emerson tried to tell us to have confidence in our own view, in our own intuition, for that was the only true view, and in the end, we'll find that everyone else has the same view! In "Self-Reliance" (1841) he said,
Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world.
Without any undue idolization of human nature, let's simply accept the fact that perhaps we all want the same thing, good feeling, forever. We want to feel happy, joyous, and eternally. All our actions imply that. Yes, we have a most pestilential curse upon us called death, which distorts our every breath, but, we consistently protest death. That consistency is the implication of our soul. It clearly shows our aversion to death.
So, in the spirit of cordiality, we can understand each other in a compassionate way. Of course, when we realize we want the same thing, competition ensues, and thence much if not most of our problems. The only solution there seems to be a certain "spirituality," that is, non-material values--which are always available in abundance. No competition there. Yet, because of death and the ego, we strive rather for the mastery of the material. It is our lot.
Thus Christ is crucified, and the most brilliant are found among the insane, the grandest spirits in prison, and the most noble hung. Or so it seems, sometimes.
Obviously, American Indians were very much a part of Southern history--though a little too early to make in into the Collective Conscious of modern America. The cameras and the news media just weren't developed in the 18th century. The Southern Indian affiars were pretty much over by 1840. (The Trail of Tears was in 1838). But the fact is Southern Indians had possibly more to do with the development of the Southern colonies than the northern Indians had to do with the development of New England.
The Londoners came to America--Southern America, in 1606. That was after Sir Walter Raleigh had come in 1584 for the failed Roanoke settlement in was was to be called "Virginia." (Raleigh tried again in 1587--on the same island.) Of course, all that was after English mariner Martin Frobisher had tried Canada in 1576. The point being these were economic ventures, and carried no deeper motivation or vision. Very much unlike the Puritan colonists, the people of the Southern settlements had no profound sense of purpose. They met, however, with the same profound obstacles of the northern colonists. Raleigh ended up condemned and hanged for blasphemy and treason--accused of being a agent of Catholic Spain, among other things. The Purtians, by contrast, were already disconnected from both the church of England and the church of Rome. They had no ties to be manipulated with or ostricized for.
It was Christopher Newport and self-styled "Captain" John Smith was made the 'royal' effort in Jamestown. The Chesapeake area Indians (Powhatan and the like) did not function as the 'saviors' to the English as Wampanoags had to the Pilgrims. The unspiritual economic adventurers died of depression and lethargy, as prisoners of war. They often "escaped" to the Indians, for survival. The Virginia Company was then taken over by Lord De La Warr, who began operating it like a military camp with severe discipline. (Indeed, his name is long remembered as "Delaware," the name given to a whole tribal network of Indians.) He inflicted the death penalty for rape "maid or Indian," by the way, for desertion to and trading with Indians as well. De La Warr declared war on the Indians by 1610. No such thing occurred among the early Pilgrim settlements. De La Warr's successor in 1611, Sir Thomas Dale, was another soldier, newly supplied, and he pursued the Powhatans fifty miles west of Jamestown.
Clearly, the initial Southern English approach to Indians was hostile. Interestingly, it would later be realized that the very largest and civilized tribes of the Americas were in fact in the Southern regions. There may have been less white people in the South than in the North, but there were apparently a lot more Indians. Perhaps it was because of De La Warr's desperate attempt to save the Virginia Company that he 'inflicted' a military approach to the whole situation; in any case, the precedent was of a bellecose nature that even the romance and marriage of Pocahontas and Ralph Hamor (her first 'husband') could not remedy in 1614--or thereafter.
There is little of the "noble savage" image in the minds (records) of the early Southern English. There were little serious attempts and converting Indians to Christianity. Remember, the southern settlements were economic-turned-military in their nature. No mission for humanity, no vision for betterment. It was all terribly pragmatic and profit-based.
Tobacco turned out to be the first cash crop, and it was a giant weed which depleted the soil very quickly. Thus, the whole impetus for expansion, for acquisition of more land, was simply profit. The southern settlements were not into building a new nation, but working for the companies of London--and making a handsome personal profit in the process. There were some crude attempts to make Powhatan leaders into subjects of the Crown, of course, but the Indians were averse to such artificial stratifications.
Eventually, United States government--a product of the Pilgrims, took to taking over the southern colonies. In the person of General Andrew Jackson, the original English notion of taking all the land for profit saw its early heyday. Jackson marched the major part of the southern tribes out to "Indian Territory" in 1838. That way all the land could be used for cash crops. The Indians simply had to be removed. They were in the way. And they put up such a nasty fight!
Cherokee Colonel Stand Watie, 1806-1871
retired as Confederate Brigadier General.
The Indians of "Oklahoma" were the southern Indians, the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, the Creek, and the Seminole. When the Civil War came about, these tribes generally sided instinctively with the South. The South was their homeland. They still felt that way about it. The North of course was concerned that the Confederacy was making inroads in Indian Territory. There were actual battles in Oklahoma, involving Indians. The Northern forces fought Confederate Sources over Indians! I should say, over control of Indians. By the summer of 1862, the North had driven Southern forces out of Indian Territory north of the Arkansas River. These Indians were placed in three regiments by the North. Interestingly the "Southern" Indians were also organized into three regiments under General Albert Pike. Cherokee Chief John Ross had preferred neutrality, but, division among Indians was inevitable. Ross believed the South would be victorious, and went about seeking treaties with the Confederacy. Cherokee Colonel Stand Watie (Stanwaite) was involved in the Battle of Pea Ridge in 1862, and ended up accused of scalping the fallen soldiers of the North. For this, Pike confined Watie to Indian Territory. (It was Pea Ridge (northwest Arkansas) that reverse the thentofore undisputed supremacy of the South among the Indians of the Territory (Oklahoma).
Of course, the plains Indians were still free on the hunt. Plains Indians had no stake in the Civil War. This is another giant psychological difference between Plains Indians and the Civilized Tribes. The history is different. Plains Indians don't have the role in American history in the same way that the eastern woodland tribes do. The plains tribes were still at war with the United States government even until the late 1870's. The Civilized Tribes were fighting as Americans already!
Ely S. Parker, Iroquois (Seneca) 1828-1895,
Brigadier General of the Union.
Inasmuch as more American Indians today are not identified politically, however, it might be difficult to measure the "Southern" disposition among Indians--even the Five Civilized Tribes. The South is most definitely their homeland, but, are they "Southerners" in the cultural sense? Probably not. Do they have a deep aversion to the North? They probably might.
In any case, it is a time in American history when Indians need to take a stand--for America. North, South, or West, this is collectively our homeland, like no one else's. It is time that we had a national voice in the American arena. Yes, we can profess neutrality, we can occupy ourselves with our independent nations, we can absorb ourselves with introspection and liberal protest against all thing white and European--i.e., American. But this is unwise. This weakens our actual position. We are essentially not in charge of ourselves. That is an illusion. We are stewards of a larger nation. Indeed, the United States declared us citizens in 1924--without even asking us if we wanted to be.
We cannot live without the effects of our circumstances. We cannot live as though we are not American citizens. I don't see any advantage for us in such an approach. We cannot remain "neutral," as Chief Ross so desired. It is not possible.
Therefore, we need to make intelligent political decisions now. We need to become actively involved in American politics. I don't mean in liberal, kook-based protest activism; I don't mean Communist-led anti-American organizations. I mean Indians should be involved in American politics in a positve way, in a shaping way, in a way that insures our future. I don't think any Indians would disagree with that.
We all have a common plight, yes; but, political movements based on common plight are merely reactionary, not formative. They are slavish, not progressive in the true sense. They are also unbeautiful. They are mean and ugly. I do believe we can do better. We are a people of great beaufy and art, by nature. It is wholly averse our nature to take such a negative view of life and circumstance. It is time we grew out of that mind set. It's not us.